New Front Runner Emerges In The SCOTUS Contest

[Aim1]

Anyone know about this guy's 2nd Amendment record?





http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/22/new-front-runner-emerges-in-the-scotus-contest/

New Front Runner Emerges In The SCOTUS Contest

6:17 PM 01/22/2017

Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may be the leading candidate for President Donald Trump’s first appointment to the Supreme Court.

Jan Crawford of CBS News, a veteran court-watcher, reports Trump may be close to settling on Gorsuch. At 49, he could conceivably serve on the Court for over 30 years if he is confirmed by the Senate.

A Marshall scholar with degrees from Oxford and Harvard Law School, Gorsuch clerked for Justices Anthony Kennedy and Byron White on the high court before entering private practice in Washington at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel PLLC. He served in the U.S. Department of Justice for two years prior to his nomination to the 10th Circuit in 2006 by President George W. Bush. He was approved by the Senate on a voice vote, as he was not considered a controversial nominee.

 

[danez71]

Here's a good write up on him.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.scot...e-neil-gorsuch/amp/?client=ms-android-verizon

 

[old lady new shooter]

Here's a good write up on him.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.scot...e-neil-gorsuch/amp/?client=ms-android-verizon

Sounds like a good guy.

 

[ontarget]

So after reading the above write up I still don't know where he stands on 2A. Did I miss something?

 

[George Dickel]

So after reading the above write up I still don't know where he stands on 2A. Did I miss something?

I guess I missed it also. Here we go again, nominating possibly middle of the road justices so as not to anger the liberals. Just another demonstration of the fact that the establishment Republicans have no balls.

 

[22-rimfire]

Trump has said he will not nominate a justice that does not support 2A in general. I expect a Supreme Court justice to use his brain rather than being fixed on a certain point of view other than constitutionality.

The fact that 2A is not mentioned in the summaries is that generally speaking it is not a determining factor with appeals court judges.

 

[HoosierQ]

I wouldn't look to much of what or current POTUS has said about anything as a guide to where he stands on 2A issues. We will need to see action. The man needs to have a chance to act before he is judged. Too many are judging him by what he's said because, thus far, he'd say about anything. I believe he is sincere on 2A but we will have to see.

 

[AlexanderA]

Any Trump Supreme Court nominee is going to hit the stone wall of the Senate Democratic filibuster. The only way such a nomination is going to go through is with a compromise, possibly involving an unrelated piece of legislation. Plus, the nominee would have to be fairly moderate.

The most likely compromise would involve some kind of delay in Obamacare repeal.

Don't expect any quick action on any of this.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

There's always the nuclear option.

 

[Dog Soldier]

This is being reported by CBS News? Does anyone see a problem with that? The Democrats used the Nuclear Option to over ride Filibusterers. Now the Republicans will use it.

 

[AlexanderA]

There's always the nuclear option.

The "nuclear option" only applies to federal executive appointments, and to judicial nominees below the Supreme Court level. For ordinary bills, and Supreme Court nominees, the filibuster is still in place. The Republicans had a chance to change this rule at the beginning of the session, and they chose not to do so. (Sen. Orrin Hatch said he did not what to change the rule, lest the Republicans found themselves in the minority at some time in the future. To him, and to other Senate Republicans, the filibuster is insurance against a future Democratic majority.)

 

[danez71]

So after reading the above write up I still don't know where he stands on 2A

I guess I missed it also. Here we go again, nominating possibly middle of the road justices so as not to anger the liberals.

Really?

Scalia is referenced 44 times in the link I provided. Almost every time its context is a favorable comparison to Scalia.


Also, in the link

A few examples make the resemblance even clearer. Take this sentence from Games-Perez: “For current purposes, just stating Capps‘s holding makes the problem clear enough: its interpretation—reading Congress’s mens rea requirement as leapfrogging over the first statutorily specified element and touching down only at the second listed element—defies grammatical gravity and linguistic logic.” Or this passage, which contains both an endorsement of Second Amendment rights and a classic Scalia principle about attaching mens rea requirements to the element that criminalizes innocent conduct:

Besides, even if the government could somehow manage to squeeze an ambiguity out of the plain statutory text before us, it faces another intractable problem. The Supreme Court has long recognized a “presumption” grounded in our common law tradition that a mens rea requirement attaches to “each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct.” … Together §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2) operate to criminalize the possession of any kind of gun. But gun possession is often lawful and sometimes even protected as a matter of constitutional right. The only statutory element separating innocent (even constitutionally protected) gun possession from criminal conduct in §§ 922(g) and 924(a) is a prior felony conviction. So the presumption that the government must prove mens rea here applies with full force.

Either of these passages would be perfectly at home in a canonical Scalia opinion about how to read the criminal law. And, it is worth noting, this means that Gorsuch, just like Scalia, is sometimes willing to read criminal laws more narrowly in a way that disfavors the prosecution – especially when the Second Amendment or another constitutional protection is involved.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet...picks-supreme-court-justice/story?id=44829796

Justice Neil Gorsuch
Judge Neil Gorsuch, 49, is currently a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals; he was nominated by Bush in 2006 and confirmed by voice vote.

Gorsuch clerked for Judge David B. Sentelle on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. He attended Harvard Law, and has a Ph.D. from Oxford, where he was a Marshall Scholar. In legal circles, he’s considered a gifted writer. Like Scalia, he's also both a textualist and an originalist.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/11/neil-gorsuch-trump-scotus-list/

For conservatives such as John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, Gorsuch meets conservative standards as an originalist and a textualist — someone who interprets the Constitution and statutes as they were originally written.

And, significantly, he has given voice to important concerns about “executive overreach” — a frequent complaint aimed at the Obama administration’s use of executive orders to achieve goals that ran into legislative gridlock.

Grosuch also seems to also be pro-choice and pro gender identity rights from other things Ive read. That's likely a good move to quite down the fearful protesters wearing pink hats and waiving rainbow flags.

He (Trump) may demonstrate some savvy-ness that no one expected/ That is, if he doesn't self destruct first. By gaining more support from the above groups, it strengthens the GOP by numbers come next election.

 

[X-Rap]

Being an originalist is of the utmost importance. I would take an originalist who has never had a ruling on the 2a over a progressive with a good 2a record who advocates the living document philosophy.

 

[Squire Western]

Being an originalist is of the utmost importance. I would take an originalist who has never had a ruling on the 2a over a progressive with a good 2a record who advocates the living document philosophy.

That post gets the gold! Originalist is the goal. No second place winner.

 

[Aim1]

Update:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judg...ing-contender-supreme-court/story?id=45005581

Judge Neil Gorsuch Emerges as Leading Contender for Supreme Court

By JONATHAN KARL

• KATHERINE FAULDER
  
  Jan 24, 2017, 8:03 AM E
  
  Gorsuch, 49, is currently a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, to which he was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2006 and confirmed by voice vote. He would be the youngest Supreme Court nominee in about 25 years.
  
  Gorsuch clerked for Judge David B. Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then for Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. He attended Harvard Law, and has a Ph.D. from Oxford, where he was a Marshall Scholar. In legal circles, he’s considered a gifted writer. Like Scalia, he's also both a textualist and an originalist.

• 
  

 

[Squire Western]

Sounds hopeful. But as we know with the likes of Warren, Stevens, Souter and Roberts, you never know for sure.

When they don those black robes for life, the whole ideology sometimes changes.

That certainly includes their focus towards the RKBA.

 

[BigBore44]

An Originalist and Textualist like Scalia simply cannot be anti-2A. And they will also not legislate from the bench. ISIS and "climate change" be damned. A liberal, legislative SCOTUS is the biggest threat to the United States.

 

[roscoe]

NPR also says Thoman Hardiman is in the running. He has the strongest 2A record:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511493397/3-judges-trump-may-nominate-for-the-supreme-court

 

[SSN Vet]

the nuclear option is whatever the majority want it to be...

The Rs threatened it and were shamed into backing off...

Then the Ds actually did it, but set the ling just short of SCOTUS picks...

Nothing prevents the Rs from changing the rules with a simple majority and expanding it to SCOTUS picks.

IMO... the filibuster and cloture rules are a clear violation which very clearly delineates those instances where a super majority is needed and leaves everything else to a simple majority. But the illustrious Senate used the filibuster to increase their own influence and clout, making themselves more important that the constitution outlines. Drop that nuke and let's roll.

 

[AlexanderA]

Nothing prevents the Rs from changing the rules with a simple majority and expanding it to SCOTUS picks.

Yes, but the way the Senate works, they had one shot at doing this, at the beginning of the session. That window of opportunity has now passed. The Republican elders undoubtedly thought this over, and decided that they wanted to keep the filibuster in place for when they are in the minority. This is a sword that cuts both ways.

 

[Squire Western]

Yes, but the way the Senate works, they had one shot at doing this, at the beginning of the session. That window of opportunity has now passed. The Republican elders undoubtedly thought this over, and decided that they wanted to keep the filibuster in place for when they are in the minority. This is a sword that cuts both ways.

Words of wisdom. What goes up, has to eventually come down.

 

[Aim1]

Yes, but the way the Senate works, they had one shot at doing this, at the beginning of the session. That window of opportunity has now passed. The Republican elders undoubtedly thought this over, and decided that they wanted to keep the filibuster in place for when they are in the minority. This is a sword that cuts both ways.

Some senator, I can't think which, Ted Cruz or someone told the Democrats when they passed this that they shouldn't because they wouldn't always be in power. Well, they charged ahead......I wonder what they were thinking. That the Dems would never be the minority again?



Either way, looks like Trump will be releasing his nominee soon, next week.